Nolan *wants* to make films that make people think - and he has been doing so for quite a while...problem is that people aren't thinking what he wants them to think. Anyone capable of critical analysis that watches a Nolan film has no choice but to question the internal logic of the film and unsuccessfully try to make sense of it. What was the point of that? Why did this happen? That makes no sense. Hell, you'd get further trying to make sense of Inland Empire or Lost Highway.

Complexity is not necessary to make your audience think, unless you want them thinking about how poorly constructed your story is.

Nolan's one major weakness is story structure - INCEPTION is two plots, two movies. Planting an idea is one movie. The wife invading his dreams is another movie. This not plot A and B, or even subplots. They have nothing to do with each other.

I haven't seen a Nolan film where something that was set up was not resolved in the end. The only movies that I can think of that where a little bit confusing at the beginning where Inception and The Prestige. Where he spent a lot of time explaining what is to be happening and then lets it happen, pays it off. It's not like Lost Highway where thing just happen randomly. Which is fun, too. But different.
I don't think at all that Nolan's scripts are poorly structured. The exact opposite is true. I think it might be subjective. I'm always amazed by Nolan movies. But I know people who say they're just BS ;)

Really glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks Nolan's films leave something to be desired. Thought I was just crazy.

@Ryan -- Totally agree.

@DSC -- I see what you're saying and agree. Except I think structure is all Nolan does.

Where other filmmakers either favor plot or character -- Nolan tends to favor structure. It's almost more important to him how the movie unfolds than what is being told or who the characters are or relate to one another.

You can see this clearly in MEMENTO, THE PRESTIGE, and INCEPTION.

What is most important about Memento is that it is told backwards. Not hard to prove, string the story together forwards and there's not much there.

The Prestige -- that its 3 acts, that the film itself defines using a magic trick as metaphor. The Setup, The Turn, The Prestige.

Inception -- that its a dream within a dream within a dream.

He spends most of his time making sure the structure of his movie's work, rather than worrying about if 1) we care (like the characters at all) or 2) its plot elements are new and interesting.

That's my opinion. I've never seen a filmmaker operate in this way. I find it oddly intriguing -- but wish he made better movies lol.

I guess he means the difference between an explosion and a whisper.

Cameron throws things at you, making one lean back and go "whoa!"

Nolan likes to hide things from you, making one lean forward and go "huh?"

I understand this comment perfectly. Cameron wants to wow you with spectacle but his films aren't deeply involving. Nolan wants to grab you by the lapels and hammer in an idea into your head.

DSC - I love the idea of one plot being a detriment to the other in Inception, so I would hesitate to say that was the problem with Inception. That film's problems run much deeper and you are merely scratching the tip of the iceberg.

The key word in the above statement is 'idea', since that's all it is. The movie never really has this happen except in the most circumstantial way possible. I think the - excuse me, ONE of the many problems with Inception is that the two plots don't collide more often.

Hakk - Just because something is set-up and resolved doesn't mean it fits the story.

Seriously try to explain a Nolan film to someone in detail. They'll think you're telling them a joke. Either that or something you overheard at day care. It's preposterous.

I do like Insomnia, though. And Memento would be great if not for the worthless filler sequence with Dodd. Everything else he's done is a certifiable mess and a minimum of 100% more complex than it has to be. I'm not saying I want simple films, however. I'm saying I want my movies to make logical sense.

I don't even know why Nolan and Cameron are being mentioned in the same breath. Sure, they make similar style films, but the greatness and precision of Cameron is literally day to Nolan's puerile, scattershot night. Terminator 1 and 2, Aliens, etc. have withstood decades of close scrutiny and critical analysis, yet the flaws and shortcomings of Nolan's attempts are evident upon first viewing. Something is wrong here and I find is absurd that people accept Nolan's sub-amateur plotting as if that's the way it has to be. I'm certain that every film he directed could be as good as anything from Cameron if the scripts were handled with kid gloves instead of a child's mentality and approach to logic and reasoning. I'd be laughing if it wasn't so sad.

I am really glad I am not the only one who gets confused in Nolan films. His films always derail into something they don't to explore or develop.

I think Nolan is an excellent writer and director, myself.

Both Cameron and Nolan are superb at what they do, in fact.

Sure, some films aren't for everyone (I've never been into torture porn, myself, like SAW) but I do understand the appeal to its audience.

My suggestion is, rather sit here and try to convince people that Nolan is, in your view, a hack, why not try to understand why his films have been hugely popular and made billions of dollars?

Because if your pitch is, he doesn't know what he's doing, it's bad, etc, or statements like the following: "Anyone capable of critical analysis that watches a Nolan film has no choice but to question the internal logic of the film and unsuccessfully try to make sense of it."

I'm just not going to buy your premise outright, it feels like you're simply ragging on him becuz you just don't care for the work, which is fine, but you make a mistake in the comment above in assuming that there is no one capable of critical analysis who does enjoy his films, and there are many, many who do ... it's a challenging statement, and one you haven't backed up. If so many people have issues with his films, why do they keep making more and more money?

Inception, like Avatar, was an original spec, to boot, that broke records, you know how rare that is? Usually sequels raise the roof on box office, we had two. And nearly every one of Nolan's movies out raises the last. If he's so bad at what he does, why does this happen?

You're saying nobody knows what they're actually seeing?

C'mon.

I've seen every one of his films (save the first one shot in the UK) multiple times and found them to be great viewing experiences ... Hell, I've seen Batman Begins at least 30 times, to analyze it. I wanted to know how and why it worked ... and it does work.

Whether everyone likes it or not is a different question, of course, obviously you don't ... but to state blatantly his films don't work flies in the face of the millions of fans he has and, not to mention, the hundreds of millions of dollars Warner Bros has given him to do what he does.

One thing I do know, studios don't give anyone that kind of money unless they prove that what they do works again and again.

You don't like it, fine. But it's not because it doesn't work.

Since when has profit ever meant quality ?

Since when is quality ONLY been defined by you and no one else?

Are you maintaining that all his movies have been torched by the critics, like every Rob Schneider movie ever made?

They're not, Nolan's movies are pretty highly rated by a majority of critics, suggesting that quality is there, is it not?

But we weren't talking quality, per se, we were talking about what "works" ... and the fact remains, Nolan's moves work for a whole lot of people, otherwise nobody would go see them and WB would stop giving him money to make his movies.

Therefore, since his films are popular and, for the most part, critically acclaimed ...

Who are you to state, baldly otherwise? To state that "anyone capable of critical analysis that watches a Nolan film has no choice but to question the internal logic of a film and unsuccessfully try to make sense of it" slurs every Nolan film and every person who does analyze film for a living who came to a different conclusion than you ...

like I said, it's totally cool if you don't like his movies, no movie should be beloved by everyone, I believe ... but it's wrong for you to suggest that anyone who works in film, who loves movies or makes them who doesn't hate Nolan's movies doesn't know what they're doing ... that's far too broad a statement and incorrect.

Ricardo, I got you mixed up with Ryan, my apologies ... you didn't make the statement I attributed, Ryan did.

the rest of my argument holds ... if the premise is, Nolan's movies don't work, why do so many people like them, why did it "work" for me and for Scott and for millions of others?

Quality is subjective ... Nolan can't please everyone ... but he seems to be able to please a whole lot of people more than most ... therefore, he's doing something right.

Popularity is also not a good way to measure quality. Alot of bad entertainment is popular. I will admit Nolan is doing SOME things right with Batman for example but he's failing to hit the mark everywhere else in the series. His grim and brooding world of Batman totally devoid of any fantasy or spectacle has narrowed the potential of his series severely. Batman himself is little more than a very angry man in a very ugly costume as opposed to a myth or legend.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Joshua James, your typical Chris Nolan fanboy.

We can all do without name calling.

What you have is people that like Nolan's films and people that don't. That's really all this is. Resorting to calling someone a fanboy or someone else illogical or a hater is childish.

I personally enjoy Nolan's films and don't find them confusing at all. I think they engage the viewer and do so without huge spectacles.

Do his films compare to Aliens or Terminator? Maybe not or maybe they do. Isn't that up to the viewer?

All I know is that many people enjoy Nolan's films. Many people enjoy Cameron's films. And many people also (somehow) enjoy Bay's films. The masses do the talking with their money. We just do the talking.

If quality really was entirely subjective, then sites like this one would not exist. We would have no reason to study films and screenplays because there is no right or wrong, good or bad, etc. It's all perfect if you say so.

Wake up to the real world, where good and bad films actually exist, where certain techniques and methods of storytelling have been working for centuries, where those who deviate from logic put out inferior films.

Ever wonder why nobody regards Son of the Mask as highly as Casablanca? I don't.

Ricardo, your complaints about Nolan's Batman could just as easily be aimed at Frank Miller's Batman as well, could they not?

His construct came from a very specific source material, and it's ...

listen, I don't really have patience for this kind of stuff ... like, dislike, Batman's not really like that (or Ironman, or Green Arrow, etc) becuz that is, in a sense, what fanboy's complain about ... I'm not calling you a fanboy, per se, I'm saying that arguing about what you WANT for a character isn't really useful in recognizing craft that works.

And yeah, popularity is a form of measurement of quality ... if not the audience, then who?

The movie is intended for an audience, and if the majority of the audience approves of it ... ask yourself why.

Hell, I know why Jackass 3D works. It makes its audience happy.

I'm not really a member of that particular audience, so why should I complain that they didn't make the movie I wanted them to make, rather than the one their audience desired.

You know?

The popularity thing, remember that there are a whole host of films that are now considered classics that failed in their original runs ... but audiences found them and made them into hits later on reruns, videos, dvds ... more people saw them, more people like them. Fight Club is a classic.

Didn't do well in the beginning. Now it's considered a classic cool movie and a whole lot of people have seen it. Because it works.

Is it for everyone? Hell no, my wife would hate it. But she's not the audience.

Get me?

I think Nolan definetly has a sense of spectacle in his films. Inception certaintly wasn't on a low scale. Though in the case of his Batman work, he's just too conservative.

The Dark Knight felt far too much like a Micheal Mann-esque crime thriller and it contained everything you would find in Mann's films. A heavy use of the conservative "post modern" architecture and set decor, setting up the majority of the action in largely empty streets, the use of dark blue lighting, and the opening was a bank heist. Nolan is pretty much trying as hard as he can to avoid Batman looking anything like a comic book film and he's really doing himself more harm than good.

"If quality really was entirely subjective, then sites like this one would not exist. We would have no reason to study films and screenplays because there is no right or wrong, good or bad, etc. It's all perfect if you say so."

Taste is subjective ... craft is not. The fact that I don't like the SAW movies is because of my tastes. Craft-wise, they're well done (well, at least the first one) ... one of the boldest movies I've seen is AUDITION, it's a classic, I'll never watch it ever again, because I hated it, but it's not a bad movie, not at all ... just not to my taste.

Where people get mixed up is when they assume that something that because something isn't to their taste, therefore it's been put together badly. Not so.

"Wake up to the real world, where good and bad films actually exist, where certain techniques and methods of storytelling have been working for centuries, where those who deviate from logic put out inferior films."

I have to tell you, there's quite a bit of ... I don't know, attitude, in the above statement. I know good and bad films exist. I know about those techniques you're talking about. Your last sentence, however, is where you get into trouble ... a film has to make logical sense otherwise it's inferior? That's been disproven time and time again. Films (and story) have their own internal logic. It may or may not be yours.

"Ever wonder why nobody regards Son of the Mask as highly as Casablanca? I don't."

What's that even mean? I don't wonder that, either.

What I wonder is why a person claims that anyone capable of critical analysis wouldn't like Nolan's films ... that's a suspect statement as that MANY people very capable of the above do enjoy his films (many respected critics, filmmakers, in addition to others, including the owner of this blog) ... basically you're saying that if we like his movies, it's because we're not smart enough and I took issue with that, not because I'm a fanboy, but because far from correct.

I'm saying, you're confusing your taste (or inability to appreciate the craft) with a universal ability to tell the world what is good and what isn't good in the art of film craft.

It's cool, you don't like him, I'm not trying to convince you to ... but you're making a mistake in assuming that he doesn't know the craft ... I've read some of his scripts, I can tell you, the dude knows what he's doing. it may not be what you dig, but he's good at what he does.

Frank Miller's Batman is by no means perfect. I really can't stand his empty headed brute of a Batman/Bruce Wayne.

"And yeah, popularity is a form of measurement of quality ... if not the audience, then who?"

I don't know, People who actually understand what film making and story telling entails ?

"Nolan is pretty much trying as hard as he can to avoid Batman looking anything like a comic book film and he's really doing himself more harm than good. "

Wow.

Listen, I'm going to tell you this honestly ... if you think Nolan has somehow harmed himself with Batman and Dark Knight, you really don't understand films and films business (and this site is about both) ...

Or how revolutionary Batman Begins was when it originally came out.

There's a youtube video comparing Batman Begins to Iron Man (they're essentially the same movie, Iron Man cribbed from BB) watch it if you can.

Nolan is probably the ONE director nearly every other writer-director wants to be right now ... he's in a position of power only rivaled my James Cameron ...

How the hell has he harmed himself? He can literally do anything with any actor he wants, after Inception?

That statement doesn't make any sense.

"I'm saying that arguing about what you WANT for a character isn't really useful in recognizing craft that works."

Then I suggest you read the comics because then you would realize taking Batman as what he is, a comic book figure, the only correct way to go. Stripping him down to just being an angry guy in a costume is removing the indentity of his character.

"I don't know, People who actually understand what film making and story telling entails ?"

And who is that?

I mean, I know quite a few people like that, I'm proud to call myself one of them, and most of the people I know who work in the industry loved it.

But again, you're making the assumption that Nolan doesn't understand those things ... based on what? The Oscar nominations? The critical acclaim (critics understand those things) the millions of fans? The studios who will literally give him whatever he wants in order to make his next movie?

Based on those things, he doesn't know what he's doing?

Why exactly? because a couple guys here didn't care for his take on it?

Seriously? C'mon!

I am not talking about financial harm. I am talking about what he's doing with the character and how's really just limiting himself.

"Then I suggest you read the comics because then you would realize taking Batman as what he is, a comic book figure, the only correct way to go. Stripping him down to just being an angry guy in a costume is removing the indentity of his character."

And what about those many people who thought he took THE PERFECT way via Miller? We're simply arguing about your taste ... I'm not that interested in that.

Talk about craft. The fact that he didn't do it the way you're prefer DOESN'T mean he doesn't know what he's doing, or that he made Son Of Mask. He made a different movie, one that was critically acclaimed and made huge money that many loved.

Becuz you don't like it, therefore it must be crap? Uh-uh.

btw, I've read the comics, so what?

"Seriously? C'mon!"

You really are diminishing your credibilty here with such remarks here Josh.

You seem to think there is a correlation between popularity and quality and I don't. That's what it comes down to.

"I am not talking about financial harm. I am talking about what he's doing with the character and how's really just limiting himself."

and I'm saying that he's literally one of two directors who HAS NO LIMITS, so I don't no where you get the idea that he's harmed himself in any way at all ... this guy is at the top of the mountain.

the character? The character belongs to DC and WB, dude, they call the shots on the direction it goes ... they wanted it dark and all Bourne, you know. Why else hire the director of Memento and Insomnia to direct their reboot?

I mean, I seriously don't understand your beef ... and maybe this discussion is pointless.

"The fact that he didn't do it the way you're prefer DOESN'T mean he doesn't know what he's doing"

And I can easily say just because you enjoy what he's doing with Batman dosen't mean it's good.

"and I'm saying that he's literally one of two directors who HAS NO LIMITS"

Joshua reading comprehension is your friend. I am saying that Nolan is limiting himself with his ideas and what he could do in future Batman films. I am not questioning his clout.

And yes this disscussion seems increasingly pointless. You sadly seem think anything that is popular is automatically granted immunity from any negative criticism.

"You really are diminishing your credibilty here with such remarks here Josh."

I wasn't aware that I had any, nor am I interested in trying to prove anything to you or anybody.

"You seem to think there is a correlation between popularity and quality and I don't. That's what it comes down to."

Are you saying, basically, that if a lot of people like something, including critics and professionals, and you don't ... THEY MUST ALL BE WRONG?

Because that's what you appear to be saying. I've pointed it out again and again. And you sniff and go just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good.

I'm saying, it's popular because it's good, in fact, Nolan's movies have fans because of the quality.

If they were never released, never found their audience, would they still have that quality? Hell yeah.

But their popularity doesn't mean they're NOT good. They are. According to may of the same working pros you cited as the ones we should listen to.

I believe that there's good craft work, as I kept saying again and again, and that there are undiscovered classics that were well crafted quality films that found their audience.

A film (or a book) is intended for an audience ... if it does it's job well, the audience grows.

You're arguing about taste, and that since it's popular and not to your taste, it must be bad.

I'm saying, liek it or not, it's a quality piece of craft work and that's why so many like it.

They weren't lined up for Son of Mask.

"And I can easily say just because you enjoy what he's doing with Batman dosen't mean it's good."

and I would absolutely agree. Now we're getting somewhere.

It isn't good because I like it per se (although I am it's intended audience) but because the craft work is excellent.

"nor am I interested in trying to prove anything to you or anybody"

I know Josh. You're doing a good job of it too.

"Joshua reading comprehension is your friend. I am saying that Nolan is limiting himself with his ideas and what he could do in future Batman films. I am not questioning his clout."

You just said he harmed himself. Anyone in the business would take it to mean what I took it to mean. Therefore it's not my reading comprehension, rather your cloudy intent, sorry. And you're still wrong, he's not limited in any way with what he wants to do with the films, if he wanted to do a campy Adam West version, he could.

Thankfully, I don't think he will.

"And yes this disscussion seems increasingly pointless. You sadly seem think anything that is popular is automatically granted immunity from any negative criticism."

I've made it very clear what I stand for, which is craft work. You keep bringing up how bad the work is, but can't explain why so many learned folk disagree with you, or why it does work for so many ... it's not about popularity, per se ...

Sigh. You tell me it doesn't work. I tell you it does, and so do millions of others ... I can go through Batman Begins point by point and tell you why, but the very fact that you don't understand craft as separate from taste means it would be a wasted exercise.

This is why I used the Jackass example ... that movie works for its audience. I'm just not its audience, but it works.

Clerks works for its audience.

21 Grams works for its audience, small as it may be (and I thankfully count myself as one of them) due to craft work.

There's a relationship between a work and its audience ... shit on them if you must, but you're only shitting on yourself, in the end.

You know?

"I know Josh. You're doing a good job of it too."

Why thank you. Good luck, sir, in all of your creative endeavors.

Josh your arrogance is really annoying me now. You can enjoy living in your world were popuarlity must mean quality but I'd like to think otherwise.

"Josh your arrogance is really annoying me now. You can enjoy living in your world were popuarlity must mean quality but I'd like to think otherwise."

Dude, the snark is the only way I can respond to snark, sorry.

I am pretty happy in my world, thank you very much.

You're free to think otherwise, this ain't China, but I'm free to tell you that I don't think popularity means quality, I haven't said that ... what I've said is, quality work is often popular, audiences want movies that work for them (their intended audience) and if it doesn't work, the audience moves on.

I've been very clear about that. Popularity doesn't equal quality.

However, popularity doesn't equal crap, either.

There is a relationship because audience and quality, that's what I maintain.

You stated that those in the know decide what quality is ... I pointed out that critics and working pros admire the very films you don't ... and you didn't respond.

If that annoys you, sorry. In discussions like these, sometimes folks get annoyed. It happens.

"quality work is often popular"

Ergo you are suggesting something is most likely popular regardless of quality.

"You stated that those in the know decide what quality is ... I pointed out that critics and working pros admire the very films you don't ... and you didn't respond."

It's not possible that every critic and every professional can all enjoy the same movie.

"Ergo you are suggesting something is most likely popular regardless of quality."

I state that there's a significant relationship between quality and the audience.

And that the intent is crucial, if you're not the intended audience, it won't work for it (ie Jackass 3D).

Can something bad be popular? Sure. Doesn't this make everything popular bad?

Not at all. Most failed movies (those that are not popular) fail because they are bad.

Most popular movies (successful with critics and audiences alike) succeed because they are quality work.

You seem to suggest (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that the very fact that something is popular immediately means it's not quality ...

I asked you, who decides quality?

You said, people in the know, those who make movies, create stories.

I pointed out the films we're discussing are very popular with the people you cite ... you ignored that.

My answer is, the audience decides quality. You're an audience, I am. You discount that immediately, which is interesting because are you not also an audience member?

So I don't get your POV.

but that's okay.

"It's not possible that every critic and every professional can all enjoy the same movie."

Aren't those the very ones who decide quality, as per your statement:

"I don't know, People who actually understand what film making and story telling entails"

If not them, than who?

"that the very fact that something is popular immediately means it's not quality ..."

As I have been saying this whole time time popularity is not a measurement of quality. I don't know how to make it any easier to understand.

"If not them, than who?"

I never said these people weren't infaliable.

"As I have been saying this whole time time popularity is not a measurement of quality. I don't know how to make it any easier to understand."

Sigh. We're going in circles.

I say that there's a direct line between audience and quality, but quality isn't measured by it ...

We're talking about defining it, were we not. Not the same as measuring it.

Listen, bro ... it's obvious you're anti-whatever's popular, that's cool, I was that way once, too. it's cool ... no need for us to drive each other nuts on this thread any more, right?

"Not the same as measuring it."

You can't seperate defining and measuring quality. Also you have once again assumed wrong. I am not "anti-whatever's popular".

okay, dude, whatever ... have a good one.

wait, Joshua, let me get something straight, you like Chris Nolan?

If the Batman movies were so good explain his silly voice.

Inception, I didn't care about the characters.

I liked Insomnia, probably because Nolan didn't write it.

"okay, dude, whatever ... have a good one."

"whatever", "dude", "bro". The common lingo of a philistine.

It's people like Joshua that just make me want to wretch. When are people going to realize that when you think everything is subjective, you loose the beauty of art ?

I'll have a post Saturday or Sunday where I hope we can draw some light rather than heat from this discussion.

In the meantime, I have to note that out of everything that's been said in this thread, Josh pointed out an incontrovertible fact: Christopher Nolan is one of probably two writer-directors (the other James Cameron) who can do whatever the hell they want in Hollywood because of his success: at the box office, with critics, and within the community of Hollywood filmmakers.

You simply can not refute that fact. Hell, he just told Warner Bros. that he refused to "The Dark Knight Rises" in 3-D.

Think about that. A writer-director. Tells a major motion picture studio. "I will not allow the next movie I make to move through an ancillary revenue stream -- i.e., 3-D -- thereby almost assuredly resulting in less income."

Who else (other than Cameron) is in the position to dictate those terms to a studio?

One can argue that Nolan's success in terms of B.O., critical praise, and admiration in Hollywood doesn't necessarily mean that what he does as a filmmaker is 'good' or not.

Fine. That's certainly your right and choice. I disagree.

But that misses out on a much more important question, at least as far as I'm concerned per this site, which exists in large part to assist aspiring screenwriters to make the jump and become professional, working screenwriters.

What is it Christopher Nolan is doing well that we can learn from his movies?

Because obviously he is doing something well -- maybe not 'right' per presumed standards re story structure or character development. But something he's doing is working with audiences.

I just don't know how anyone can argue against that proposition.

Again I'll be putting up a post soon to try to see if there's something of value we can learn from this debate.

I'll have a post Saturday or Sunday where I hope we can draw some light rather than heat from this discussion.

In the meantime, I have to note that out of everything that's been said in this thread, Josh pointed out an incontrovertible fact: Christopher Nolan is one of probably two writer-directors (the other James Cameron) who can do whatever the hell they want in Hollywood because of his success: at the box office, with critics, and within the community of Hollywood filmmakers.

You simply can not refute that fact. Hell, he just told Warner Bros. that he refused to "The Dark Knight Rises" in 3-D.

Think about that. A writer-director. Tells a major motion picture studio. "I will not allow the next movie I make to move through an ancillary revenue stream -- i.e., 3-D -- thereby almost assuredly resulting in less income."

Who else (other than Cameron) is in the position to dictate those terms to a studio?

One can argue that Nolan's success in terms of B.O., critical praise, and admiration in Hollywood doesn't necessarily mean that what he does as a filmmaker is 'good' or not.

Fine. That's certainly your right and choice. I disagree.

But that misses out on a much more important question, at least as far as I'm concerned per this site, which exists in large part to assist aspiring screenwriters to make the jump and become professional, working screenwriters.

What is it Christopher Nolan is doing well that we can learn from his movies?

Because obviously he is doing something well -- maybe not 'right' per presumed standards re story structure or character development. But something he's doing is working with audiences.

I just don't know how anyone can argue against that proposition.

Again I'll be putting up a post soon to try to see if there's something of value we can learn from this debate.

"What is it Christopher Nolan is doing well that we can learn from his movies?"

To me that is like saying "let's learn from Brad Bird" but I much rather learn from Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett. They had a better grasp of the fine principles of animation. Just like Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Ford knew the best film making techniques and story telling.

If you want to discuss "how to be popular and to throw your weight around Hollywood", that's fine. I just don't think that'll help any one learn what they really need to know.

"I don't really have patience for this kind of stuff ... like, dislike, Batman's not really like that (or Ironman, or Green Arrow, etc) becuz that is, in a sense, what fanboy's complain about ..."

In hindsight, I really should have stopped arguing with this fool at this point. The same can be applied to people who argue about literature to film adaptations, so I guess that must mean they are "fanboys" who are just nitpicking.